Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2006, 01:26 PM   #1
redrock-skins
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets View Post
Lets put this to rest. Here is the breakdown by quarter:

Code:

      FIRST       SECOND       
   Pass   Run   Pass   Run       
Q1   3     1      2     2       
Q2   1     3      2     2       
Q3   1     4      0     1       
Q4   7     1      5     0

Obviously, we ran on 1st/2nd downs a LOT more in the first three quarters. We gave up the run in the fourth when we had no choice.

If the announcers are to be believed, I blame this one on Gibbs. They quoted him as saying that we were going to run the ball a LOT more tonight because he thought 17 touches was not enough (FWIW, I agree). However, that suggests he took some control back from Saunders. How the hell are the players supposed to learn the system if Saunders isn't allowed to run it?
Fair enough.
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:40 PM   #2
illdefined
Playmaker
 
illdefined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nyc
Age: 50
Posts: 2,631
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets View Post
Lets put this to rest. Here is the breakdown by quarter:

Code:

      FIRST       SECOND       
   Pass   Run   Pass   Run       
Q1   3     1      2     2       
Q2   1     3      2     2       
Q3   1     4      0     1       
Q4   7     1      5     0

Obviously, we ran on 1st/2nd downs a LOT more in the first three quarters. We gave up the run in the fourth when we had no choice.

If the announcers are to be believed, I blame this one on Gibbs. They quoted him as saying that we were going to run the ball a LOT more tonight because he thought 17 touches was not enough (FWIW, I agree). However, that suggests he took some control back from Saunders. How the hell are the players supposed to learn the system if Saunders isn't allowed to run it?
you think Saunders doesn't like to run?? why do you know the name Priest Holmes? or Larry Johnson? Both Gibbs and Saunders are well regarded coaches precisely because of the run.

those runs on 1st and 2nd down may have meant something if Ladell was more than a backup, and T.J. was more than straight ahead battering ram.

Ladell and T.J. are absolutely NOTHING SPECIAL. they run into space in front of them, but neither see the field laterally to find their own holes or make anyone coming from the side miss.

you know who does see the field surprisingly well (besides Portis of course)? SELLERS. that guy has a genuine knack man, he can sense the field!

that screen pass last night and those carries in preseason - not to mention all the TD passes last year - really show his awareness of the field. unlike Ladell and T.J, he actually moves his feet to avoid guys not directly in front of him. and unlike Ladell at least, when Sellers has to put his head down and hit somebody, he actually moves that somebody.
__________________
a fan. not a cheerleader.
illdefined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:37 AM   #3
Longtimefan
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:43 AM   #4
12thMan
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longtimefan View Post
All of us here, as well as personell people around the league felt at the time the addition of Al Saunders was the greatest plus for the team this offseason. Things are definately not going good at the moment and when this happens we start looking at everything a little more critically, and begin pointing to area's we think gives us the quickest fix. Right now there is no quick fix for this team because the problems we're experiencing are multiple, and if we're looking for someone to blame it can be spread throughout the entire team. I beleive eventually we will work our way out of this funk we're in and render out doubts unfounded. We all witnessed blame tonight, but I'm hoping we'll play our way out of it despite how hard it is to be optomistic at this point in time.

Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be iminent.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:53 AM   #5
redrock-skins
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
Longtime, with the highest payroll in the NFL and the highest paid coaching staff in the NFL, yes sir, you must start to point some fingers. There is no time to play out this funk. There is no time to hope Brunell comes around in Jacksonville. The troops have to rallied tomorrow morning. Changes must be iminent.
That sums it up. I've tried to stay positive until tonight. Each year, its excuse after excuse. In my dreamworld, I wake up tommorrow and find Campbell named the starter and Saunders fired and just let Gibbs call the plays.
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:39 AM   #6
12thMan
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

But here's the thing Beemnseven, if we see the same thing if Gibbs was still calling the plays, why bring in Saunders?? That was the point, he was supposedly a genius at perhaps covering diffeciencies.

I tried my best to reserve my judgement about the Al Saunders signing. In fact, I showed very little enthuiasm about it. I just wanted to wait and see. Well, under Gibbs last year...Moss had a record year, Portis had a record year, uhhh umm, Brunell had a record year! I thought at best the offensive was one or maybe two players away from taking us to the next level. I thought Gibbs play calling needed some tweaking but not overhauling...seems like it's a case of one step forward and two steps back.

Honestly, unless Saunders somehow turns this offense into a thirty point a game machine, someone please, please tell me why in the hell did we bring him here??

It's not like he won any Super Bowls at KC!!!
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:36 AM   #7
Longtimefan
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

It's easy to point fingers when times are tough, it's to be expected. We all know we're struggling, we all think we know what the problems are but I'm more interested in listening to solutions as opposed to constantly pointing out the problems. We are not going to fire everybody, bench and/or replace everybody so we have to play the game with what we have. I don't see anything wrong that winning won't cure. I can go back through these post a few months and the very same people that had us in the SB are now singing a different tune now that we've lost a couple games. No more SB's now, it' fire everybody, it's truly amazing ho quickly things can change.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:38 AM   #8
GMScud
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,626
Angry Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.

On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck.
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:49 AM   #9
Longtimefan
Playmaker
 
Longtimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Germantown, Md.
Posts: 4,832
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GMScud View Post
Well, you're only as good as your offensive line (see teams like the Raiders and the Texans). And tonight we didn't block anyone. Brunell was on his butt the whole game (he needs to sit regardless). Plus, we couldn't get a pass rush to save our lives. What's that, 2 sacks total in 2 games against two immobile, old quarterbacks?? What happens when we play Philly and Atlanta? Bottom line, we're not getting it done up front on either side of the ball. Blache and Bugel need to get on those guys in a big way.

On a side note, how nice was it to see my man Sean Taylor laying the lumber on T.O.?? The man hits like a truck.


WELCOME!!!! GMScud, I like your name. I agree with your observation about the OL. That along with others are included in the breakdowns that are preventing us from winning.
Longtimefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 08:39 AM   #10
LongTimeSkinsFan
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 64
Posts: 515
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

After last night, I've drawn the following conclusions which I'm sure many others here have reached as well. Aside from the new offense, I feel pretty confident that:

1) CP is a key part of the offensive plan and players like Betts and Duckett are nowhere near being an acceptible substitute.

2) The offensive line, despite being the same bunch of guys we had last year are proving to be extremely porous on pass blocking and ineffective on run blocking. God forbid if we begin suffering injuries to the O-line, knowing that our back-ups are less skilled than our starters.

3) I'm disappointed that the offense appears to be nothing more than a 2 receiver offense, much like last year. Last year it seemed that most throws were going to Moss and Cooley. Now it seems that most throws are going to Moss and Betts (or whoever the RB is at the time). ARE is getting a few looks and Lloyd seems to get almost none. I doubt that it is because they are not getting open. I think it is more likely the result of observation #2 or Brunell not being able to go through his progressions efficiently.

4) While I'll reserve final judgment, I suspect that Brunell no longer has the physical ability to perform in this offensive scheme. He was better last year because most of the time, all he had to do was hand off to Portis and toss a couple of jokes around in the huddle. While it's still a little early, it appears he's just not getting this new offense.
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 01:47 AM   #11
Luxorreb
^21^
 
Luxorreb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,630
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

Looked like he was studying pretty hard during the game.
hmmmmmm. NO TDs by the offense...
__________________
^21^
Luxorreb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:10 AM   #12
12thMan
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,460
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

If we think the Texans will be pushovers, we have another thing coming. Unfortunately for us, they will be as desperate for a win as any team we've faced so far through three games.

They actually held their own against Philly until the caved in and handed them the game. I expect a very competive game from them. If we make the mistake of chalking this one up like we did against Minnesota, surely we'll
be 0-3.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 02:21 AM   #13
itvnetop
Playmaker
 
itvnetop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 49
Posts: 3,007
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

i predicted a slow start on the offensive side of the ball, so i'm not that surprised... but i didn't think it would be this slow. i know blaming the new system is cliche, but some of that can't be understated. not being able to block up front, the backs not picking up their blocks correctly, the wideouts and qb not being on the same page, cooley not sure what his role in this offense is- this all leads to basic breakdowns that shouldn't happen in pro football.

when a player learns something new, he isn't yet reacting instinctively on the field- he's still mentally going through steps before and during the play instead of automating. that's why you may see wideouts breaking a few yards short on a pass play designed to pick up 8. a guard may totally whiff on fundamental blocking because he hesitated for a split second before remembering his assignment. apply that to an entire unit and you see what happens.

having said all that, i still think everyone on the offensive side of the ball could have contributed a lot more than what was shown tonight.
itvnetop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 03:00 AM   #14
Big C
Mr. Brightside
 
Big C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 40
Posts: 4,453
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

in hindsight it looks like so far saunders was too big of a transition, maybe gibbs should have still called plays with saunders adding some input and not totally changing the scheme
__________________
"I don't care what nobody say I'm a be me, stay hood stay real, cause I'm out here grindin'" -Joe Gibbs
Big C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2006, 07:13 AM   #15
kingerock
Special Teams
 
kingerock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Killeen, TX
Age: 50
Posts: 360
Re: Al Saunders: was he necessary?

I think of a Suanders offense, and I see the importance of two good backs (Portis and Duckett) a strong TE (Cooley) a strong offensive line and capable WRs, which over the years in KC, nobody can really name any of them. It should have been the perfect fit. I think it all starts with the threat of a running game though, and that opens up the middle of the field for Cooley then the outside of the field for the WRs. We've got to get Portis back.

I'm glad Saunders is here for the long term. We've got options when Gibbs is ready to go with him and GW. I personally wish we could have added a vet QB in case Brunell looked like he did at the end of last year (which he does) and a Ty Law type DB and kept moving, but I think the new offense without Portis and the Springs injury is what's hurting us the most.
__________________
Redskins fan lost in Texas for 20 years. Need a ride to D.C.
kingerock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.48305 seconds with 11 queries